Rapist of a child gets community sentence

Prison should not be the first option for people under 25. That's the guidelines

People of 25 are adults and have been so, in the eyes of the law, for 7 years.

I would like to know the reasoning behind this because it seems to be at DD with what age is considered old enough to vote, get married, drink alcohol etc.

Should rape or murder not always carry a custodial sentence?
Should there not be a difference in sentencing between someone who has been involved in a crime such as thieving, larceny etc and a rapist?

Seems to be at odds

Autocorrect!! I should check first.

Am I correct in thinking that the age to vote in Scotland is 16?

If so it stands to reason that if you are old enough to determine who governs the country you are living in you are old enough to know the laws of that country and abide by them.

Rape should in my opinion always carry a custodial sentence.

MerylStreep

volver3

Oh please.

Give it a rest.

We all live in caves and have no morals at all.

And no, you haven't got this right.

If your country didn’t have Neanderthal laws we might not think that.

Wow.

GrannyGravy13

Am I correct in thinking that the age to vote in Scotland is 16?

If so it stands to reason that if you are old enough to determine who governs the country you are living in you are old enough to know the laws of that country and abide by them.

Rape should in my opinion always carry a custodial sentence.

👏👏👏

Everyone on the thread is out of step - except one, apparently.

The law in Scotland is different to England in some respects but In this case the sentence will be based on the rule that the defendant has to be sentenced to a penalty they would have got at the age the offence was committed, even if they are not convicted until some years later. This man has been sentenced as a 17 year old youth, not a 21year old man. In these situations the judges hands are tied by the sentencing options and guidelines relating to a much younger defendant.

GrannyGravy13

Am I correct in thinking that the age to vote in Scotland is 16?

If so it stands to reason that if you are old enough to determine who governs the country you are living in you are old enough to know the laws of that country and abide by them.

Rape should in my opinion always carry a custodial sentence.

Yes, here in Scotland, if you are 16 you can vote in elections to the Scottish Parliament and in local council elections. You still have to be 18 to vote in elections for the UK Parliament. I think the same applies to Wales too.

An absolutely appalling and upsetting sentence.

PernillaVanilla

The law in Scotland is different to England in some respects but In this case the sentence will be based on the rule that the defendant has to be sentenced to a penalty they would have got at the age the offence was committed, even if they are not convicted until some years later. This man has been sentenced as a 17 year old youth, not a 21year old man. In these situations the judges hands are tied by the sentencing options and guidelines relating to a much younger defendant.

It is the same elsewhere.

I did ask earlier; the crimes were committed 8 years ago but he has just been convicted and sentenced.
What would the sentencing guidelines have been if he had been convicted back then?

It's an anomaly

Callistemon21

Everyone on the thread is out of step - except one, apparently.

Well it ain’t me 😄

MerylStreep

Callistemon21

Everyone on the thread is out of step - except one, apparently.

Well it ain’t me 😄

Nor me

I'd be shocked if anyone actually thought that anyone who raped a 13-year-old didn't deserve to go to prison, no matter how old the perpetrator was at the time.

Presently a judge's role is not to make law but to uphold the laws which are made by the parliament.

GrannyGravy13

MerylStreep

Callistemon21

Everyone on the thread is out of step - except one, apparently.

Well it ain’t me 😄

Nor me

Can't be me either. My first post on this thread was that the sentence was too lenient.

Wonder who it is?

eazybee

Presently a judge's role is not to make law but to uphold the laws which are made by the parliament.

Which he did.

I think you're a bit confused about sentencing.

eazybee

Presently a judge's role is not to make law but to uphold the laws which are made by the parliament.

In this instance I think the phrase the law is an ass is appropriate.

Why?

volver3

GrannyGravy13

MerylStreep

Callistemon21

Everyone on the thread is out of step - except one, apparently.

Well it ain’t me 😄

Nor me

Can't be me either. My first post on this thread was that the sentence was too lenient.

Wonder who it is?

Really? Well, you have a doppelgänger then, as the first post under your name said:
Oh please.

Give it a rest.

We all live in caves and have no morals at all.

And no, you haven't got this right.

Straight onto the attack, as ever.

OK, second one then.

Glad you're keeping up.

volver3

OK, second one then.

Glad you're keeping up.

Well, it does shift the narrative somewhat, doesn't it? Instead of a reasonable post talking about the topic at hand, you snarl at everyone and accuse us of being anti-Scottish.

volver3

Why?

In my opinion anyone found guilty of rape, should be given a custodial sentence.

At the age of 17 this male knew he was committing a crime.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Here's a little nugget for you.

The guidelines are the work of the Scottish Sentencing Council. Chairwoman Lady Dorrian. Anyone suggesting that she is politically motivated needs to give their head a wobble.

GrannyGravy13

Am I correct in thinking that the age to vote in Scotland is 16?

If so it stands to reason that if you are old enough to determine who governs the country you are living in you are old enough to know the laws of that country and abide by them.

Rape should in my opinion always carry a custodial sentence.

Rape isn't wrong because the law of the land says it is. It's wrong because it's wrong.

Forgive my pedanticality but meaning matters

Doodledog

volver3

OK, second one then.

Glad you're keeping up.

Well, it does shift the narrative somewhat, doesn't it? Instead of a reasonable post talking about the topic at hand, you snarl at everyone and accuse us of being anti-Scottish.

Is it reasonable to suggest that sentencing guidelines are all part of the (imaginary) Scottish attempt to undermine women?
Is it reasonable to say that the sentencing guidelines are an initiative from the Scottish Parliament, when they are not, but it suits the witch hunt to say they are?
Is it reasonable to link this with the trans debate?

We’ll have to differ then, on what constitutes “reasonable”.